AIG now worths about $1 bil, and we put in $180 bil

[jficquette]

[quote=flu]You think we’ll ever get our money back from GM too?[/quote]

GM was only $60 Billion. Quit complaining.

John

[davelj]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=davelj]
This is true. But… would you also have been in favor of canceling – or, more accurately, discounting – all of AIG’s insurance contracts where claims were due? My point is that if you don’t make Goldman, etc. whole – which is fine – then you can’t make Jane Q. Public whole on her husband’s (who just died) life insurance either. Everyone is made whole or everyone gets the same haircut. You gotta pick one.[/quote]

Dave,

I don’t think the choice is as black and white as you make it. When the FDIC takes over a bank, they do not make the investors whole, nor do they cover accounts bigger than the insurance limits. Likewise in the this case, the government could pick and chose who they make whole, and who they give haircuts to.

Now, politically that might be difficult for a group of people put in office through campaign contributions. Or you could argue that it was not the government’s place to pick and choose. (Although by choosing to make everyone whole they are choosing winners (banks that got bailed out) and losers (taxpayers who will foot the bill) Or you could argue that you don’t think giving some haircuts but not others is fair. (Sorry, but fairness in our economy went away a long time ago) But there is no reason the government couldn’t have given haircuts to some and not to others.

For instance, they could have set limits on how much they were going to make people whole for. (Just like the FDIC does) They could have said, we will honor insurance policies up to 5 million dollars, for instance. That would have protected Jane Q. Public whose husband just died, but not traders at GS.

Likewise, they could have decided to backstop certain products but not others. The government could have backstopped life insurance products, business coverage, homeowners, etc, but not backstopped derivatives and/or credit default swaps.

Or another option would have been to only backstop credit default swaps where the holder of the swap actually owned the underlying asset. ie, those that bought the swaps as insurance vs those that bought the swaps as gambles.

But the reality is that what the fed/government did is not apply any of these kinds of tests but instead made everyone whole at the taxpayer’s expense. Most of us see that as rather unfair, because we believe that companies like GS knew darn well what they were doing, knew darn well that AIG couldn’t cover all these bets, and knew darn well that their former associates were in place to cover their bets.

XBoxBoy[/quote]

You’re right that the govt. has done a lot of picking of winners and losers – so to speak – between industries and within the capital structures of certain companies. No doubt. What they have NOT done, however, is pick winners and losers among customers within the product categories of particular financial companies. So, you’re comparing apples and oranges with your analogies in this case.

To use one of your examples, recall that FDIC insurance limits were known well before the banking crisis started. No one went to AIG’s customers and said, “Oh, and by the way, if this company should fail, the regulators will decide which customers get made whole and which don’t.” And while the insurance limits were later expanded, depositors who were supposed to be made whole in the first place didn’t suffer because of this. So these changes didn’t negatively impact anyone who wasn’t already SOL.

That’s not to say that the govt. couldn’t have done what you suggest after the fact in AIG’s case. They can do whatever they want – apparently. But, thus far at least, the govt. has tried to treat all classes of CUSTOMERS (as opposed to investors) within these various financial companies equally. Rightly or wrongly.

[davelj]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=davelj]
This is true. But… would you also have been in favor of canceling – or, more accurately, discounting – all of AIG’s insurance contracts where claims were due? My point is that if you don’t make Goldman, etc. whole – which is fine – then you can’t make Jane Q. Public whole on her husband’s (who just died) life insurance either. Everyone is made whole or everyone gets the same haircut. You gotta pick one.[/quote]

Dave,

I don’t think the choice is as black and white as you make it. When the FDIC takes over a bank, they do not make the investors whole, nor do they cover accounts bigger than the insurance limits. Likewise in the this case, the government could pick and chose who they make whole, and who they give haircuts to.

Now, politically that might be difficult for a group of people put in office through campaign contributions. Or you could argue that it was not the government’s place to pick and choose. (Although by choosing to make everyone whole they are choosing winners (banks that got bailed out) and losers (taxpayers who will foot the bill) Or you could argue that you don’t think giving some haircuts but not others is fair. (Sorry, but fairness in our economy went away a long time ago) But there is no reason the government couldn’t have given haircuts to some and not to others.

For instance, they could have set limits on how much they were going to make people whole for. (Just like the FDIC does) They could have said, we will honor insurance policies up to 5 million dollars, for instance. That would have protected Jane Q. Public whose husband just died, but not traders at GS.

Likewise, they could have decided to backstop certain products but not others. The government could have backstopped life insurance products, business coverage, homeowners, etc, but not backstopped derivatives and/or credit default swaps.

Or another option would have been to only backstop credit default swaps where the holder of the swap actually owned the underlying asset. ie, those that bought the swaps as insurance vs those that bought the swaps as gambles.

But the reality is that what the fed/government did is not apply any of these kinds of tests but instead made everyone whole at the taxpayer’s expense. Most of us see that as rather unfair, because we believe that companies like GS knew darn well what they were doing, knew darn well that AIG couldn’t cover all these bets, and knew darn well that their former associates were in place to cover their bets.

XBoxBoy[/quote]

You’re right that the govt. has done a lot of picking of winners and losers – so to speak – between industries and within the capital structures of certain companies. No doubt. What they have NOT done, however, is pick winners and losers among customers within the product categories of particular financial companies. So, you’re comparing apples and oranges with your analogies in this case.

To use one of your examples, recall that FDIC insurance limits were known well before the banking crisis started. No one went to AIG’s customers and said, “Oh, and by the way, if this company should fail, the regulators will decide which customers get made whole and which don’t.” And while the insurance limits were later expanded, depositors who were supposed to be made whole in the first place didn’t suffer because of this. So these changes didn’t negatively impact anyone who wasn’t already SOL.

That’s not to say that the govt. couldn’t have done what you suggest after the fact in AIG’s case. They can do whatever they want – apparently. But, thus far at least, the govt. has tried to treat all classes of CUSTOMERS (as opposed to investors) within these various financial companies equally. Rightly or wrongly.

[davelj]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=davelj]
This is true. But… would you also have been in favor of canceling – or, more accurately, discounting – all of AIG’s insurance contracts where claims were due? My point is that if you don’t make Goldman, etc. whole – which is fine – then you can’t make Jane Q. Public whole on her husband’s (who just died) life insurance either. Everyone is made whole or everyone gets the same haircut. You gotta pick one.[/quote]

Dave,

I don’t think the choice is as black and white as you make it. When the FDIC takes over a bank, they do not make the investors whole, nor do they cover accounts bigger than the insurance limits. Likewise in the this case, the government could pick and chose who they make whole, and who they give haircuts to.

Now, politically that might be difficult for a group of people put in office through campaign contributions. Or you could argue that it was not the government’s place to pick and choose. (Although by choosing to make everyone whole they are choosing winners (banks that got bailed out) and losers (taxpayers who will foot the bill) Or you could argue that you don’t think giving some haircuts but not others is fair. (Sorry, but fairness in our economy went away a long time ago) But there is no reason the government couldn’t have given haircuts to some and not to others.

For instance, they could have set limits on how much they were going to make people whole for. (Just like the FDIC does) They could have said, we will honor insurance policies up to 5 million dollars, for instance. That would have protected Jane Q. Public whose husband just died, but not traders at GS.

Likewise, they could have decided to backstop certain products but not others. The government could have backstopped life insurance products, business coverage, homeowners, etc, but not backstopped derivatives and/or credit default swaps.

Or another option would have been to only backstop credit default swaps where the holder of the swap actually owned the underlying asset. ie, those that bought the swaps as insurance vs those that bought the swaps as gambles.

But the reality is that what the fed/government did is not apply any of these kinds of tests but instead made everyone whole at the taxpayer’s expense. Most of us see that as rather unfair, because we believe that companies like GS knew darn well what they were doing, knew darn well that AIG couldn’t cover all these bets, and knew darn well that their former associates were in place to cover their bets.

XBoxBoy[/quote]

You’re right that the govt. has done a lot of picking of winners and losers – so to speak – between industries and within the capital structures of certain companies. No doubt. What they have NOT done, however, is pick winners and losers among customers within the product categories of particular financial companies. So, you’re comparing apples and oranges with your analogies in this case.

To use one of your examples, recall that FDIC insurance limits were known well before the banking crisis started. No one went to AIG’s customers and said, “Oh, and by the way, if this company should fail, the regulators will decide which customers get made whole and which don’t.” And while the insurance limits were later expanded, depositors who were supposed to be made whole in the first place didn’t suffer because of this. So these changes didn’t negatively impact anyone who wasn’t already SOL.

That’s not to say that the govt. couldn’t have done what you suggest after the fact in AIG’s case. They can do whatever they want – apparently. But, thus far at least, the govt. has tried to treat all classes of CUSTOMERS (as opposed to investors) within these various financial companies equally. Rightly or wrongly.

[davelj]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=davelj]
This is true. But… would you also have been in favor of canceling – or, more accurately, discounting – all of AIG’s insurance contracts where claims were due? My point is that if you don’t make Goldman, etc. whole – which is fine – then you can’t make Jane Q. Public whole on her husband’s (who just died) life insurance either. Everyone is made whole or everyone gets the same haircut. You gotta pick one.[/quote]

Dave,

I don’t think the choice is as black and white as you make it. When the FDIC takes over a bank, they do not make the investors whole, nor do they cover accounts bigger than the insurance limits. Likewise in the this case, the government could pick and chose who they make whole, and who they give haircuts to.

Now, politically that might be difficult for a group of people put in office through campaign contributions. Or you could argue that it was not the government’s place to pick and choose. (Although by choosing to make everyone whole they are choosing winners (banks that got bailed out) and losers (taxpayers who will foot the bill) Or you could argue that you don’t think giving some haircuts but not others is fair. (Sorry, but fairness in our economy went away a long time ago) But there is no reason the government couldn’t have given haircuts to some and not to others.

For instance, they could have set limits on how much they were going to make people whole for. (Just like the FDIC does) They could have said, we will honor insurance policies up to 5 million dollars, for instance. That would have protected Jane Q. Public whose husband just died, but not traders at GS.

Likewise, they could have decided to backstop certain products but not others. The government could have backstopped life insurance products, business coverage, homeowners, etc, but not backstopped derivatives and/or credit default swaps.

Or another option would have been to only backstop credit default swaps where the holder of the swap actually owned the underlying asset. ie, those that bought the swaps as insurance vs those that bought the swaps as gambles.

But the reality is that what the fed/government did is not apply any of these kinds of tests but instead made everyone whole at the taxpayer’s expense. Most of us see that as rather unfair, because we believe that companies like GS knew darn well what they were doing, knew darn well that AIG couldn’t cover all these bets, and knew darn well that their former associates were in place to cover their bets.

XBoxBoy[/quote]

You’re right that the govt. has done a lot of picking of winners and losers – so to speak – between industries and within the capital structures of certain companies. No doubt. What they have NOT done, however, is pick winners and losers among customers within the product categories of particular financial companies. So, you’re comparing apples and oranges with your analogies in this case.

To use one of your examples, recall that FDIC insurance limits were known well before the banking crisis started. No one went to AIG’s customers and said, “Oh, and by the way, if this company should fail, the regulators will decide which customers get made whole and which don’t.” And while the insurance limits were later expanded, depositors who were supposed to be made whole in the first place didn’t suffer because of this. So these changes didn’t negatively impact anyone who wasn’t already SOL.

That’s not to say that the govt. couldn’t have done what you suggest after the fact in AIG’s case. They can do whatever they want – apparently. But, thus far at least, the govt. has tried to treat all classes of CUSTOMERS (as opposed to investors) within these various financial companies equally. Rightly or wrongly.

[davelj]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=davelj]
This is true. But… would you also have been in favor of canceling – or, more accurately, discounting – all of AIG’s insurance contracts where claims were due? My point is that if you don’t make Goldman, etc. whole – which is fine – then you can’t make Jane Q. Public whole on her husband’s (who just died) life insurance either. Everyone is made whole or everyone gets the same haircut. You gotta pick one.[/quote]

Dave,

I don’t think the choice is as black and white as you make it. When the FDIC takes over a bank, they do not make the investors whole, nor do they cover accounts bigger than the insurance limits. Likewise in the this case, the government could pick and chose who they make whole, and who they give haircuts to.

Now, politically that might be difficult for a group of people put in office through campaign contributions. Or you could argue that it was not the government’s place to pick and choose. (Although by choosing to make everyone whole they are choosing winners (banks that got bailed out) and losers (taxpayers who will foot the bill) Or you could argue that you don’t think giving some haircuts but not others is fair. (Sorry, but fairness in our economy went away a long time ago) But there is no reason the government couldn’t have given haircuts to some and not to others.

For instance, they could have set limits on how much they were going to make people whole for. (Just like the FDIC does) They could have said, we will honor insurance policies up to 5 million dollars, for instance. That would have protected Jane Q. Public whose husband just died, but not traders at GS.

Likewise, they could have decided to backstop certain products but not others. The government could have backstopped life insurance products, business coverage, homeowners, etc, but not backstopped derivatives and/or credit default swaps.

Or another option would have been to only backstop credit default swaps where the holder of the swap actually owned the underlying asset. ie, those that bought the swaps as insurance vs those that bought the swaps as gambles.

But the reality is that what the fed/government did is not apply any of these kinds of tests but instead made everyone whole at the taxpayer’s expense. Most of us see that as rather unfair, because we believe that companies like GS knew darn well what they were doing, knew darn well that AIG couldn’t cover all these bets, and knew darn well that their former associates were in place to cover their bets.

XBoxBoy[/quote]

You’re right that the govt. has done a lot of picking of winners and losers – so to speak – between industries and within the capital structures of certain companies. No doubt. What they have NOT done, however, is pick winners and losers among customers within the product categories of particular financial companies. So, you’re comparing apples and oranges with your analogies in this case.

To use one of your examples, recall that FDIC insurance limits were known well before the banking crisis started. No one went to AIG’s customers and said, “Oh, and by the way, if this company should fail, the regulators will decide which customers get made whole and which don’t.” And while the insurance limits were later expanded, depositors who were supposed to be made whole in the first place didn’t suffer because of this. So these changes didn’t negatively impact anyone who wasn’t already SOL.

That’s not to say that the govt. couldn’t have done what you suggest after the fact in AIG’s case. They can do whatever they want – apparently. But, thus far at least, the govt. has tried to treat all classes of CUSTOMERS (as opposed to investors) within these various financial companies equally. Rightly or wrongly.

[BGinRB]

Don’t mix Jane Q. and GS.
GS did not purchase insurance from AIG.

[BGinRB]

Don’t mix Jane Q. and GS.
GS did not purchase insurance from AIG.

[BGinRB]

Don’t mix Jane Q. and GS.
GS did not purchase insurance from AIG.

[BGinRB]

Don’t mix Jane Q. and GS.
GS did not purchase insurance from AIG.

[BGinRB]

Don’t mix Jane Q. and GS.
GS did not purchase insurance from AIG.

[capeman]

GS purchased Credit Default Swaps as insurance policies for their MBS that went bad. GS got paid out by the taxpayer as did other banks and sovereign funds and that is money we will not be getting back as they are insurance plan payouts that only go one way. It is not our responsibility as taxpayers to be paying out on securities insurance plans. It is our responsibility to protect depositors for their hard earned cash they place with financial institutions that are supposed to be regulated and closely observed for capital requirements by .gov.

The problem I have with this is that GS claimed they hedged their losses on bad MBS meaning they got paid twice, once from the hedge and once more from the taxpayer. It’s all wrong and so are giving bonuses to people running an insolvent company that they drove to insolvency.

[capeman]

GS purchased Credit Default Swaps as insurance policies for their MBS that went bad. GS got paid out by the taxpayer as did other banks and sovereign funds and that is money we will not be getting back as they are insurance plan payouts that only go one way. It is not our responsibility as taxpayers to be paying out on securities insurance plans. It is our responsibility to protect depositors for their hard earned cash they place with financial institutions that are supposed to be regulated and closely observed for capital requirements by .gov.

The problem I have with this is that GS claimed they hedged their losses on bad MBS meaning they got paid twice, once from the hedge and once more from the taxpayer. It’s all wrong and so are giving bonuses to people running an insolvent company that they drove to insolvency.

[capeman]

GS purchased Credit Default Swaps as insurance policies for their MBS that went bad. GS got paid out by the taxpayer as did other banks and sovereign funds and that is money we will not be getting back as they are insurance plan payouts that only go one way. It is not our responsibility as taxpayers to be paying out on securities insurance plans. It is our responsibility to protect depositors for their hard earned cash they place with financial institutions that are supposed to be regulated and closely observed for capital requirements by .gov.

The problem I have with this is that GS claimed they hedged their losses on bad MBS meaning they got paid twice, once from the hedge and once more from the taxpayer. It’s all wrong and so are giving bonuses to people running an insolvent company that they drove to insolvency.

[capeman]

GS purchased Credit Default Swaps as insurance policies for their MBS that went bad. GS got paid out by the taxpayer as did other banks and sovereign funds and that is money we will not be getting back as they are insurance plan payouts that only go one way. It is not our responsibility as taxpayers to be paying out on securities insurance plans. It is our responsibility to protect depositors for their hard earned cash they place with financial institutions that are supposed to be regulated and closely observed for capital requirements by .gov.

The problem I have with this is that GS claimed they hedged their losses on bad MBS meaning they got paid twice, once from the hedge and once more from the taxpayer. It’s all wrong and so are giving bonuses to people running an insolvent company that they drove to insolvency.

[Author]

Posts